The amniocentesis tests amniotic fluid in the womb, it is NOT a blood test.
I refused it in the mid 1990s, due to the openly published very high risk rate,(causes an abortion at the rate of one in every 200 patients) acknowledged as factual, by my Obstetrician, one who specialized solely in high risk pregnancies.
Converting the “risk rate” to a “percentile” distorts the dangerous nature of this test. The adverse reaction in one of every 200 infants tested, is death.
Not an acceptable lethality rate for an entirely elective and medically unnecessary test.
So you can either stop openly displaying your ignorance, or continue to spout lies and distortions for whatever reason you self justify.
“Really long post you authored to display a level of willfull ignorance that amounts to idiocy.
“The amniocentesis tests amniotic fluid in the womb, it is NOT a blood test.”
ROTLFMAO.
Really willful refusal to actually read the article of the original post, WHICH IS, IN PART, ABOUT A BLOOD TEST THAT ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR AMNIOCENTESIS to diagnose Down Syndrome.
READ THE ARTICLE:
“Laboratories are promising a prenatal diagnostic test for Down syndrome based solely on a blood sample from the expectant mother.”
THAT was the point of the transition in my post - we're arguing about whether a risk of something around .06% - .5% is a “high risk,” and the article is talking about a NEW TEST that has ZERO ADDED RISK.
Pay attention.
“causes an abortion at the rate of one in every 200 patients”
Ah, at least we have a starting point with which to agree, which is that it was formerly believed that the general rate of miscarriage from amniocentesis was around 0.5%. You consider that a very high risk. I consider it a low risk.
That's a difference in perception.
However, even by the 1990s, folks who did this often, were using ultrasound to help guide the needle, etc., were, in their practices, achieving lower rates of miscarriage. Sorry your doctor apparently was NOT one of the ones who had begun to use more advanced techniques or, for some other reason, was NOT able to lower his rate of miscarriage for this procedure. We were significantly more fortunate than you in that we went to folks who actually knew what they were doing and were able to reduce the incidence of miscarriage significantly in their practice.
Just like many others, as demonstrated in any number of studies for which citations are readily found on the Internet.
A 2006 study (look it up yourself) found a miscarriage rate of roughly 0.06% (which is, if you care, a rate of 1 child in 1600) as the methods used and technologies applied to amniocentesis (such as the use of ultrasound) improved the procedure. Other studies have found rates that vary, but almost all well under a rate of 0.5%
“The adverse reaction in one of every 200 infants tested, is death.”
Yes, but we were having only one baby, not 200.
“Not an acceptable lethality rate for an entirely elective and medically unnecessary test.”
In your view, the knowledge gained isn't particularly worthwhile. In our view, it was, for reasons previously stated.
And, that's the whole point. In the view of THE OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF PARENTS who are thought to be carrying a Down Syndrome baby, the knowledge is worth the risk, too.
Now, you have two choices: you can continue to stick your head in the stand, condemn those folks who decide to test, and cede the battlefield to the pro-aborts (thus enabling abortion of thousands of children), or you can encourage people to use the test results in a pro-life way - to prepare, to learn, to inform, to find support - rather than solely for the purpose of killing unborn children.
sitetest
Oh yeah, my wife reminded me about something which is actually mentioned in the article ABOUT THIS NEW BLOOD TEST THAT WILL DIAGNOSE DOWN SYNDROME WITHOUT AMNIOCENTESIS [LOL]:
“And many mothers of children with Down syndrome will say the same thing, expressing appreciation for having known their child’s condition prenatally so that they could prepare, on their terms, for how to share the news and for delivering at a hospital with the appropriate neonatal services.”
You write (falsely): “Not an acceptable lethality rate for an entirely elective and medically unnecessary test.”
For us, part of the purpose of determining whether or not our son had Down is that it would have changed the way we dealt with our pregnancy and delivery. We'd chosen to use a practice of nurse midwives to assist us through pregnancy and to have delivery in their house/office, when the time came. We had a backup hospital, in case anything happened, and, indeed, because of complications in delivery, we wound up piling my wife into the nurse midwife's old VW bug and driving up to the backup hospital, where delivery was ultimately assisted by both our nurse midwife and our OB/GYN.
We believed the use of the nurse midwife was the optimal MEDICAL way to go through pregnancy and delivery.
However, if our son would have had Down Syndrome, there were other options - MEDICAL OPTIONS - to be considered, including whether the nurse midwives would have agreed to continue to serve as our primary caregivers through pregnancy. Many nurse midwife practices avoid higher-risk pregnancies, as this practice did. As well, delivery in the office/house would have been out of the question - it'd all have happened in a hospital (and I don't think that the hospital in which our son was ultimately born was the ideal choice in our region for delivery of a Down baby).
Thus, the right medical path through pregnancy and delivery was different for a baby with Down Syndrome as compared to one without.
sitetest